mnvoronin t1_j90nk73 wrote

>In my opinion, we should certainly be imposing a windfall tax on these energy companies.

You may find it interesting that Gazprom, Russian gas monopoly, was slapped with a windfall tax last year and ended up paying almost all of its extra profits back to the government.

Unfortunately, western governments seem to be toothless.


mnvoronin t1_j1ymav9 wrote

Damn. It's the second time it happens to me.

When I accessed this source via Google search, it didn't paywall the data. Opening it from the Reddit link doesn't let me see shit. :(

Try searching for "world reading habits 2017" from the private window. It seems to allow you to open the stats one time for free.

However looking at the sidebar, the source seems to be an online survey, so results are probably skewed somewhat (though given that over 90% of Russians have Internet access, probably not much - at least the distortion should be relatively similar to that of USA results).

It also does match pretty well with my own observations, though obviously, my account is purely anecdotal and not statistically significant :)


mnvoronin t1_j1yfgx1 wrote

Russia is quite a well-read nation, to be honest. 29% of Russians read books every day, 30% read at least once a week, and a further 16% read books every month. Which leaves only 25% of the non-reading population.

It's more or less on par with the USA statistics (30, 25 and 16% correspondingly).

Sauce (data is from 2017)

EDIT: the sauce seems to be paywalled, however, there is a workaround: search for "world reading habits 2017" in the private browser window. Link to Statista should be among the top results and they allow you to view the data once if coming from a Google search.


mnvoronin t1_j0mn6ld wrote

>Carbon emissions were produced at every stage of the use and creation of this fuel.

Well, growing plants is, I believe, a carbon-negative process. But that's the only stage that is negative.


mnvoronin t1_j0gbi6c wrote

Technically not and you can perform some tests confirming that (objects on the far wall will be accelerating ever so slightly compared to the objects on the inside wall), but the effect on the typical spacestation scale is very small (in order of nanometers per second squared).


mnvoronin t1_izzqgh3 wrote

Huh? It's exactly the opposite.

Liquids typically have a density between 0.7 to 2 kg/l (one of the densest electrolytes used in batteries, sulphuric acid, is 1.84). Common solids go from 1 to 8 kg/l (iron is 7.8) and some even higher. For example, lithium titanate used in the battery is about 3.4 kg/l.


mnvoronin t1_izzn9z6 wrote

If you read the linked article, you will find that the battery in question is using lithium ions. And the researchers claim 300 mAh/g energy density, which is pretty much up there.